The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

Continued from page 3

As for Apple’s iPod, Forbes and Ames helpfully show us that the memory in one costs $49; memory that “cost $7,000 twelve years ago.” They attribute (Forbes publisher Rich Karlgaard refers to this phenomenon as the “cheap revolution”) this evolution to “the Staples principle”: “Technologies out of reach for most people today end up at Staples or some big box retailer at cheap prices, if not tomorrow, then in the very near future.” Some who should know better decry the riches attained by entrepreneurs who mass produce former luxuries, but they only grow wealthy insofar as they greatly improve our lives.

Regarding the often misunderstood notion of “deflation”, some who should similarly know better, including our frequently oblivious Fed Chairman Bernanke, think falling prices are something to avoid; that deflation drives down consumption. Total nonsense, and that is so because what’s just been described is decidedly not deflation. Instead, if the prices of Kindles and computer memory declines, that gives us more money to demand new goods, thus driving up their prices for a time. Deflation occurs when the value of money is unstable and falls below its historical level, but as evidenced by the sevenfold rise in the dollar price of gold since 2001, we’re nowhere near deflation at the moment.

As for Mitt Romney’s wealth, the authors do the GOP nominee a great service, and one can only hope that he reads their book on the way to explaining his rate of taxation more effectively. They write that some questioned “the morality of his tax returns, which revealed that he paid a 15 percent tax rate because his income came from investments.”

But as they further note, “Sparse attention was paid” to “the rationale behind the capital gains rate.” Specifically, “Critics make it sound as though the gains are a certainty-however, most new ventures fail.” Precisely, and this speaks to taxing gains from investments at zero, as opposed to 15%. There are no entrepreneurs without capital, those who back entrepreneurs always risk losing everything, so the way to advance commerce is to remove all barriers to investment success.

Addressing investment success further, the authors write about “silicon,” and make the essential point that “Without free markets unleashing human ingenuity, it would have remained in its natural state as sand on a beach, rather than being used to power billions of computers.” So very true, and just the same oil found its purpose with the human creation of the combustible engine. Here it’s interesting to point out something the authors allude to, which is that Detroit was Silicon Valley before Silicon Valley was Silicon Valley, yet today the latter thrives while the former is a wasteland. Of course in Silicon Valley bad ideas die a quick death, while Detroit and the feds continue to prop up U.S. carmakers to the point that they’re wards of the state. Bailouts have wrecked Detroit, whereas as the allowance of failure has made Silicon Valley incredibly successful, and a magnet for the talented.

Back to the discussion of human capital, the economics profession almost to a man asserts that which is horrifyingly untrue; that World War II ended the Great Depression. What a dangerous, and wrongheaded view. Indeed, it is humans who give life to the economic advancement, yet war destroys essential human capital. World War II did not end the Great Depression, but the end of the New Deal did. The New Deal’s end in the late 1930s led to the removal of barriers to production that made fighting the war a possibility. Let’s not put the cart before the horse.

As for disagreements, there were a few. They write that “there’s nothing wrong with supporting some government-funded research.” Yes there is, and that’s so because when it comes to government, one can’t be just a little bit pregnant. Growth is to government what oxygen is to humans, so to allow a little bit of government research is to get a lot on the way to high taxation. Even if we assume governments sometimes achieve research advances, better it is to lose out on what they might discover so that as much capital as possible remains in the private sector where the real creativity exists.

Considering education, they argue for more competition there. It’s hard to disagree, but it’s also hard to countenance the view they seemingly hold that it would make much of a difference. Schools on their best day are teaching yesterday’s news, and then logic tells us they can’t teach the entrepreneurialism or hard work that leads to commercial advancement. We have the world’s best universities because the U.S. is the greatest economic story in the history of mankind, not as a result of those schools.

And then they write early in the book that the “belief in government’s moral preeminence remains deeply embedded in the nation’s DNA.” I don’t think so. The U.S. was created by immigrants who came here precisely because they were skeptical of government. The U.S. near as I can tell is the only nation ever created based on that skepticism, and it says here skepticism of government is what courses through our veins. So it’s not a belief in government that is embedded within us as much as one of the negative tradeoffs to prosperity is that we grow flabby, and occasionally forget what kind of governance allows us to be successful. When we do – the ‘30s, the ‘70s, the ‘00s – we decline only to relearn old lessons.

To fix this we need to return to basic economic principles. Light taxation, free trade, little to no regulation and stable money values are essential. Economic growth is easy. After that, the authors reference a Syrian professor Sami Moubayed whose students understood about Steve Jobs (Jobs descended from Syrian immigrants) that “had he worked in Syria, he would probably not have achieved any of his innovations.” No he wouldn’t have, but in the U.S. he could. Beyond the basics, we must open our borders to the world’s talented so that they can come here and innovate. What we’ll additionally get in the bargain is people fully aware of how governments can wreck things, and their presence will make a repeat of the ‘30s, ‘70s and ‘00s less likely.

Importantly, the quibbles are minor, and something tells me there’s not even much disagreement there. Freedom Manifesto is an excellent book, it’s accessible, and it’s the perfect roadmap out of our present malaise.